THE LAND QUESTION TO THE EDITOR.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 117, 19 May 1914, Page 2

THE LAND QUESTION TO THE EDITOR.

Sir.— lfc is interesting— l had almost written amusing— to contrast Mr. Massey's reply to the deputation to-day with' his speech at Napier a few days ago. Replying to certain gentlemen from the Wairarapa. this morning, who urged tho acquisition of certain estates in their district, the Premier descanted on the practical difficulties with which he is surrounded by the Land for Settlements Act. Speaking at Napier, the right j lion, gentleman triumphantly quoted figures showing that he had expended half a million last year in the purchase of estates. Reading his speech thero one would conclude that he regarded the efficacy of the Land for Settlements Act as quite beyond the pale of controversy, and that the one requirement was to make acquisitions keep pace with ' the demand for land. If we read that speech in the light of his reply to the Wairarapa deputation to-day, however, we will realise that the Premier fully realises the limitations of the Land for Settlements Act. I venture to add that he ha* exaggerated the difficulties connected with compulsory purchase, and there is every reason to conclude that he did so merely to choke off an inevitable admission that the system of settlement by purchase has broken down hopelessly. Sir. Massey epoke truly when he stated that no estates have been acquired compulsorily for the pa-st seven years. He omitted to explain the reason, however. Here it is : Every estate compalsorily acquired cost the State an amount far in excess of tho real value of the property. The award was made by a tribunal comprising a Judge of the Supremo Court and two assessors, of whom one represented the State and the other "expropriated" owner. Naturally the owner placed ai high value on his land, and ho never had any difficulty, in procuring ample "expert" evidence— generally that of land agents — to support his case. Hi? assessor was invariably "out" to secure as much money as possible for his principal, and, of course, able counsel were briefed to present the case as fa.vourably for the squatter as possible. Let theresuits speak for themselves. I will not bore the reader with figures, but the fact is that compulsory purchase mulcted tho State in grossly exaggerated prices. The evils inseparable from this abuse are too patent to be ignored — the tenants settled on the properties are .obliged to pay rent on spurious values, and hence it is Hot surprising to learn from Mr. Massey that reductions have had to be made. The evil does not stop there, however, for the Valuation Department, acting on I the strength of the prices at which properties wei'o acquired, increased the valuations of all the contiguous private land. Thus the system ha« (inter alia) conduced materially to the over-valua-tion of land throughout the country. The Premier did not tell the deputation yesterday, however, that a *repeH* tion of these abuses has been made impossible. By section 81 of the Land Laws Amendment Act, 1907, compulsory purchase is not indeed abolished, but it is provided that, as from the 31st March, 1903, the purchase price of land acquired shall be the market value of improvements, plus the unimproved value ol the property, as disclosed by tho Government 4 valuation, and, in order to ensure the landowner adequate compensation, 10 per cent, is to be added to the unimproved value if and when it does not exceed £50,000, 5 per cent, being added to residue of the unimproved value. This provision is now incorporated in section 31 of the Land for Settlements Act, 1908 (Consolidated Statutes). It is somewhat significant that since its enactment we have heard very little from the squatters about excessive valuations. The explanation is that it is to their interests, in view of the possibility of purchase, to have the valuations as high iw» possible, but it beggars my comprehension that the small farmers, who have to bea.r excessive valuations without the salve of possible purchase, should remain ao quiescent in the face of a state of things which the slightest consideration will show to be indefensible. The reader who will take the trouble to follow the facts as I have- outlined them will realise at once why land purchase is bo popular with the squatters. Realising that closer settlement is inevitable, they /are now avowing themselves the friends of closer settlement, but they want the public to believe that the only method of accomplishing it is by purchase. The slightest discussion will show that purchase is inherently futile as a means of securing the equitable distribution of land, but it suits the squatters too well to be criticised by them. The question is : How long will the mass of the peoplo permit themselves to be cheated by a system which euits nobody but thi land monopolist ? The facts sjfcak for themselves. The land for settlements system has now been in force for nearly twenty years; jet during that time it has been tho means of placing only 5000 settlers at a cost of £7,000,000! To-day the State finds itself burdened with 90,000 acres of unlettable land — the "scrag" portions of estates acquired for closer settlement ! Tho system has materially contributed 1 to the spurious valuation of land, and to-day land is 6O dear that the purchase | of estates as a means of placating the demand ior land hits tomb to a standstill. ] If land values were at bedrock, or even .nearly so, Mr. Masaey could go on purchasing to his heart's content, for a few years at least. As things are he is tho appreciative of his responsibilities to commit the State to wholesale purchase-— and bankruptcy. The Premier does not put it quite so candidly to the Wairarapa deputation, but his reply means nothing else. I agree fully with the deputation as to the need for closer settlement in 'the Wairarapa. The census returns furnish ample confirmation, inasmuch as they show that Wairarapa. gained only 408 people between tho years 1906-11. Closer settlement there or elsewhere, however, will never be facilitated by purchase, but by the taxation of land values. — I am, etc., P. J. OEEGAN. 18th May,